My name is Scott and I am on a self-study path to learning Latin. So far I have really enjoyed the Wheelock book. I have a couple of very basic questions I hope may be answered here.

On page 6 of the revised 6th edition the 2nd principal part of "do" is written as "dare" with a stress on the -a but no macron. I was under the impression that first conjugation verbs are identified by this long "a." Is this an error of omission or am I missing something?

My second question is in regards to learning the principal parts of the verbs. From what can see in this chapter's vocubulary it looks like first and second conjugation verbs might follow a pattern. What I mean is it looks like the form for 1st conj is often -o, -are, -avi, -atum while second is often -o, -ere, -ui, -itum

of course I see that "video" appears to stray from this possible pattern but I am looking for anything that may help me commit all the principal parts to memory as well as intuitively guess those for new words as I encounter them.

You're essentially correct, but...the reason there are four principle parts is because you have to know all of them to produce all the verb forms, and because they often don't follow a completely predictable pattern. Which is not to say there aren't patterns, just that you can't depend on all verbs following them.

The vowels preceeding the ending for each conjugation are important for helping recognize them.

First conjugation is the most consistently regular, and a lot of books will just list the first principle part + (1) if it follows the pattern you noted above. do, dare, dedi, datus is an exception; it's pretty irregular for a first con. verb.

The marker for second conjugation is -eo, not -o. This is important to distinguish it from the third conjugation (-o, -ere, with a short e).

The third principle part is the least predictable; sometimes it will follow the -avi/-ui/-ivi pattern, sometimes not.

scottS wrote:On page 6 of the revised 6th edition the 2nd principal part of "do" is written as "dare" with a stress on the -a but no macron. I was under the impression that first conjugation verbs are identified by this long "a." Is this an error of omission or am I missing something?

Just to add about this, it's not a mistake. Throughout the conjugation of "do" you'll find a short "a" where you expect to see a long "a". I'd go even further than spiphany and call it one of the few truly irregular verbs in Latin.

Thank you both for your replies. I see now looking up Do in the Oxford Latin dictionary that all 4 principal pares are listed because it is so irregular. So if I understand correctly, unless all 4 parts are listed in the dictionary entry the verb may be conjugated following the "patterns" noted above. As spiphany mentioned the second conjugation starting with -eo and the second part being -ere (long e)

For example video is listed as a 2nd cojugation verb with the 1st 3rd and 4th principal parts. I assume the second is omitted because it follows the expected form of -ere (long e).

Sorry if I am missing this. I want to be sure I have chapter 1 in hand before I move on. Im also anxious to build some more vocabulary. I have heard it said you will develop a "feel" for conjugations as your experience grows.

EDIT: here is another example I find confusing. If I were to look up valeo in the dictionary it tells me it is a second conjugation verb. Since the 4th principal part takes the form valiturum which seems different from the other 2nd conjugation examples in this chapter how would one know this if they came across the verb?Many Thanks,

Haven't got my Wheelock in front of me, but I think he chose to give Valiturum as the 4th part to allow you to form the future Active Participle of valeo. Since valeo is a verb that cannot have a passive meaning (it sort of is passive) it cannot have a normal 4th Principal Part (since these are passive). But the Romans sometimes needed to make a Future Active Participle of this verb and so needed to have a 4th Principle Part. Is this confusing? I have confused myself, but it does make sense.The short answer is just consider it as slightly irregular, and it will start to make sense sometime around stage 23, if I remember correctly.

The only thing we can guarantee when communicating via the internet is that we will be almost completely misunderstood, and likely cause great offence in doing so. Throw in an attempt at humour and you insure a lifelong enemy will be made.

scottS wrote:For example video is listed as a 2nd cojugation verb with the 1st 3rd and 4th principal parts. I assume the second is omitted because it follows the expected form of -ere (long e).

Yes, that's a common convention. From my experience, dictionaries won't list the infinitive unless it's irregular, since they also give the conjugation number, which tells you what the infinitive is.

Just to add to ptolemyauletes' reply, you just need to notice that if the 4th principle part in Wheelock ends in -urum, it's the future active participle instead of the perfect participle and indicates that verb doesn't have a perfect participle. Dictionaries usually list another form, called the supine, as the 4th principle part, so e.g. I suspect that in the Oxford dictionary, you'll see valitum with valeo. The stem of all these forms is that same though, and that's what's important to get out of the 4th principle part.

I think I thought a little ahead of myself being on Chapter 1 Your explanations to make sense however and I will solider on. I am sure many of these things will make sense as I progress. In the mean time its rote memorization and flashcards

spiphany wrote:First conjugation is the most consistently regular, and a lot of books will just list the first principle part + (1) if it follows the pattern you noted above. do, dare, dedi, datus is an exception; it's pretty irregular for a first con. verb.

Continue the disussion about "do dare..." Scott have asked. I have a similar but extended question.

Declaration of typing script: I use signs "\=" to mean adding a macron on the following character.(Just as the rule used in the software LATEX.) In this way, the word list is "d\=o, dare, ded\=i, datum".

My quetion is: what is the present stem (and present active imperative) of this verb? Is it "da" or "d\=a"?

As Wheelock's book(6th ed) page 3 said, just "drop off the -re ... and you have the 'present stems'." In such way, I get "da".

What's more, for future tense, If I say "I will give...", is it "d\=ab\=o" or "dab\=o"?

On book page 35, chapter 5, SENTENTIAE ANT\=IQUAE 11:S\=i quand\=o satis pec\=uniae hab\=eb\=o, tum m\=e c\=onsili\=o et philosophiae dab\=o.Wheelock used "dab\=o". But it seems contradict to the imperative form he has used.

For imperfect, is "d\=abam" or "dabam"? ---- If you have red Dale A Grote's "study guide to wheelock latin, chapter 15 Imperfect indicative active", he said "The tense sign for the imperfect tense is '-ba-', which is added to the lengthened stem of the first principal part. So what do we mean by lengthened? It means that the stem vowel, if it is not already long, is made long."----But he also said the 1st and 2nd conjugation verbs need not this "lengthen" rule because they have been long. Yet here for "dare", it is short!So whether it should be "dabam" or "d\=abam"?

Looking it up in Allen & Greenough's grammar, it seems that the a in da- is long only in 2nd person present dās and imperative dā, everywhere else it's short, so it's dabō not dābō, and dabam not dābam. The present stem is da-, and then you just remember it appears lengthened in dās and dā.

The way Grote describes the formation of the imperfect, I don't think you can fit dō in there, unless you say that da- is irregularly lengthened by not being lengthened at all.

modus.irrealis wrote:Looking it up in Allen & Greenough's grammar, it seems that the a in da- is long only in 2nd person present dās and imperative dā, everywhere else it's short, so it's dabō not dābō, and dabam not dābam. The present stem is da-, and then you just remember it appears lengthened in dās and dā.

The way Grote describes the formation of the imperfect, I don't think you can fit dō in there, unless you say that da- is irregularly lengthened by not being lengthened at all.